State board revokes Millview water license

The State Water Resources Board this week revoked a water right owned by Millview County Water District, stating that the "water has not been put to useful or beneficial purpose for a period of five years or more."

The right is License 5763, formerly owned by Masonite, and Ken Budrow, president of the Millview County Water District's board of directors, said the right, allowing Russian River diversion, could provide 5,800 residents with 200 gallons a day.

"It is a valuable resource that we don't want to lose," Budrow told the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors last month, adding that the water could also be used to help other districts such as Redwood Valley County Water District, which cut off agricultural users.

Millview also argued to the state water board that the license would "provide an important water supply for potential customers on the Masonite property and throughout Millview's water service area boundaries for residential, commercial and industrial uses."

According to the state board, Millview serves 1,500 customers with "water diverted from the Russian RIver under claimed, contractual and state-issued water rights." In 2001, the Department of Health Services ordered Millview to not offer any more connections due to "inadequate source water capacity."

According to the state board, Millview's argument for keeping its license implied that if the license were revoked, the water district's "inadequate source water capacity" would continue, but the board argued that if it did not revoke the license, "Millview could have ... a water right, with a priority dating back to 1954, that authorizes the year-round direct diversion of water from the Russian River at a rate of 5.9 cubic feet per second, (and) such diversions could occur during any month of the year."

According to the board, the Sonoma County Water Agency and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife support revoking the license "to protect water supply and prevent environmental impacts on Russian River public trust resources."

The board goes on to state that while it is "concerned that ample water supply is available for human consumption, the need to serve additional customers is not a valid policy argument to nullify a forfeiture. If the board did not revoke the license, it would essentially allow Millview to initiate a new water right with a much earlier priority than could be obtained by following the proper procedures for obtaining a new water right. This would be unfair to junior appropriators who have been relying on availability of water after the mill closed, and to water users who followed proper procedures for obtaining a water right."